Andrew Smith,

“This strong growth in the outer suburbs contributed to a population increase in Australia's capital cities of 224,400 people in 2010-11. This accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the Australian population. Melbourne had the largest increase, up by 66,900 people, followed by Sydney (59,800) and Perth (42,800).”

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Media%20Release12010-11?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2010-11&num=&view=

It is very difficult to determine what immigration is actually achieving, except achieving increased numbers of people living in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

If more and more people living in the outer suburbs of a city is good, then immigration is good.

That is the case now, and like I have written, focusing upon problems but the solutions, but the future? Immigration can achieve a stronger, more diverse and better society; if Australia can move growth to regional areas, while at same time keeping an eye on the future and enforcing higher density sustainable living in cities with better public transport and community. What's wrong with that?

Andrew Smith,
The future is overpopulation.

Rural Australia has minimal need for high population numbers, and attempts to increase population in inland Australia has normally lead to problems beyond our resources to fix.

See environmental problems with the Murray-Darling basin as an example.
http://www.mdba.gov.au/services/education-resources/environmental-issues

Most other river systems in inland Australia are similar.

I understand where you are coming from :)

Sub Saharan Africa will face population pressures mid century, while population will have stabilised or started decreasing by mid century, as it has already in many countries (not entirely relevant to Australia that you seem to know so well), e.g. Iran already has a lower birth rate than Australia.

Not suggesting high population in regional Australia (even regional cities are only oversized country towns), but more balanced where the differential between city and regions is decreased.

The Murray Darling Basin is a good example of mismanagement i.e. too many water licences, profligate or bad irrigation methods, wrong types of crops etc.; again solutions can be found.

You would be aware then of e.g. the West Corurgan private irrigation scheme on the Murray Darling Basin and what the then Minister in NSW said in the mid 1960s when giving approval?

But I suppose it doesn't really matter because it is not the (underlying) point of your arguments.

Andrew Smith,
The following statement was released in 1994:

“Australia's land mass, though large, is less rich than other continents in
many biologically important elements. As a consequence, its ecosystems are
relatively fragile, and human impact on the environment is particularly
severe. This impact has been documented even for the relatively sparse,
low-consumption Aboriginal societies. The impact of modern Australian
society is much more severe.

If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the
quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water,
soil, energy and biological resources. Cities such as Sydney and Melbourne
will double or triple in size, multiplying their current infrastructure
problems and their impact on the surrounding regions of the continent.”

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf

Seems to be right on the ball so far, but then:

“Alternatively, new cities of their present size and impact will have to be
sited, built and serviced. Moreover, this large population would continue to
grow for decades after 2040, and the quality of Australian life would
continue to fall.”

Obviously you know about how people live in regional Australia and have travelled extensively amongst towns and regional communities? The bulk of regional population live in regional cities and towns, not on farm land, let alone state forests or isolated outback areas.

Not worth continuing this conversation hopping from one proxy anti immigration argument to the next.......

Yes I have lived in rural Australia most of my life, and I have worked in agriculture and in mining. They are not large employers, and anything west of the Great Dividing Range is usually fragile country that can hardly support much tree cover (except a few rosewoods, ironbarks or poplar gums), much less large populations of humans.

Yeah right, makes me sceptical (or skeptical?) of one's motives, and curious about ways of "communication" and circular arguments? Using a sporting analogy it is like swimming laps while everybody else is playing water polo........but I know where it is supposed to lead......

The strategy is of providing anti immigration fodder through plausible proxy issues or problems, with neither positives nor solutions, for the anti immigration lobby, "dog whistlers" and others to influence the more credulous who have no issue with immigration and diversity.

There is a whole portfolio of proxy issues and problems to throw round while ignoring rebuttals of specifics and solutions, but knowing if repeated often enough, they will be believed.

A forum for "libertarians" does the same (and without any irony, i.e. telling/shouting at people what to think), and some members publicly admit as much, i.e. the alternative to using proxy issues would be outright attacks on "towel heads", Asians etc. which would be rightly viewed as racist (but of course Australia is not racist as we have laws against it).

Andrew Smith,

Huh?

Study the maps in this pdf file carefully.

http://www.gabcc.org.au/tools/getFile.aspx?tbl=tblContentItem&id=96

For most of Australia, there is minimal arable soil and minimal rainfall.

Australia will be lucky to be able to feed and house its current population, and any increase in population will likely put severe strains on the environment. When the environment collapses, it generally brings about major economic collapse as well.

Clearly Andrew , and others of like mind, simply do not want to know about such pesky details nor take them into consideration when it comes to setting immigration levels.

Because there are neither present not future food shortages on the horizon; meanwhile farmers are getting out of farming because no money in farming, generally low commodity prices, yet Australia has the potential to be an Asian food basket.

However, that would not be congruent with the religious cult like belief that Australia is suffering from "runaway population growth", dilution of culture through immigration etc.and on its way to Armageddon....... and should not interact socially with Asia.....

Skills matching is the system already (not perfect unless we want to be Soviet), and large part of the population is from net overseas migration, which is affected largely by movements of people in and out, i.e. temporary residents such as international students from Asia, plus growth has stalled with significant drops in offshore commencements..... so no problem there?

However, these "foreign" visitors are good for Australian education institutions, related service providers, tourism, their home countries, good for skilled immigration, regional relations and trade. So win win situation, nothing to complain about there?

It is not population which is unsustainable but our profligate way of life, especially when we need to get off our addiction to oil and other energy sources through better public transport, urban planning e.g. higher density and energy efficient housing.

Just think, if in the past if we tried to stop all foreign visitors, immigrants etc. like many wish to do now, the likes of Sir John Monash's family, economic refugees, would not have been allowed to settle in Australia, anyone see the irony? :)

Well presented arguments Andrew. Ecological footprints and natural population growth rates are the more pressing issues. The solutions to these are very difficult due to the primacy of individual rights. America, for example, will find it difficult to implement a universal emissions tax because many Americans view taxes of any form as theft. Without placing a price on energy it will only be the concerned that will make genuine efforts to reduce their impact and this impacts carrying capacity.

In terms of natural population growth, higher economic development and income usually solves this problem but it will be a long wait for the poor in some regions of the world. The one-child policy is effective but oppressive. What to do?

On immigration, the major opponents tend not to have a problem with their families and friends breeding as much as they want but are distressed that people are allowed to migrate to their cities. It makes their arguments about carrying capacities a little hollow. It is similar for inbound tourism, which is encouraged by all because those foreigners leave their money here. But if significantly higher tourism becomes permanent that has the same environmental impact as a permanently higher population. However, I don't read people arguing for limits on tourists to Sydney.

Paul Pagani
I would argue against any expansion in tourism, because it is so similar to increasing the population.

I would also like to see the figures of ecological footprint of an average tourist, compared to the ecological footprint of a local resident. I think the total ecological footprint of a tourist would be much greater.

On a per day average, definitely. However, I don't think there are many voices in the crowd supporting the call for capping tourism (other than in particularly fragile wilderness ecosystems). But the point is, tourists should count in any population assessments and solutions.